It may be said that
truth is life, and life requires discernment. While novels are
usually understood to be fiction and often more or less refer to
historical events, when dealing with Eternal
matters we are walking on Holy
Ground. When a
soul proffers as facts things about Jesus and the Bible but which
in fact are lies, then they are to be fully examined and exposed
by those who have come to know Christ and realized the truth of
Scripture. Which, unlike Dan Brown and publisher$, calls us to
“prove all things” (1Thes. 5:21). Therefore is this
work written.

Dan Brown has produced a work
of near - complete fiction presented as fact, which alleges that
the faith of Christians is the result of a vast and suppressive
conspiracy – a very serious charge – but which theory
is based on page after page of fabrications. These are easily
shown to be such by ancient Biblical texts and abundantly
substantiated historical facts and which affirm just the opposite
of Dan Brown's imagination. The Da Vinci Code's opening
assurances that the novel is based on accurate descriptions is
misleading, leading souls to assume it has been carefully
historically researched, when just the opposite is true, and only
historical ignorance, and or desire for deception, and a most
extreme reliance on conspiratorial circular reasoning would allow
it any credence as fact. Though Mr. Brown's fiction is not
limited to Christian history, that being of ultimate importance
this exposé primarily addresses that subject.

With over
60 million copes of the Da Vinci Code in print and with
multitudes paying to see the film version, many have asked how
much of the story which Dan Brown weaves is true, with many
deceived souls (33% in one poll) believing it substantially is.
This is not surprising, considering it is the Bible which Brown
attacks, which men by nature seek to rationalize away rather than
make the changes it calls for. In addition, we live in an age of
extreme illiteracy regarding the Bible and how it was passed
down. But Brown also craftily writes his novel and promotes it as
if it were based on fact. Page one of his book boldly declares
FACT, and while this refers to all his descriptions of artwork,
architecture, documents, and secret rituals and not to his
version of history, this itself is not entirely accurate, and the
intimation throughout the novel is that it is an exposé of
suppressed truth. As a result, it became necessary to post signs
at many tourist attractions in Europe and to provide other
information stating that the descriptions in the Da Vinci Code
about their locations are wrong (no secret chamber under the
floor in a certain chapel, or that a particular building was not
constructed by a secret society, etc.). In Brown's own personal
promotions, his prevarication was far broader and bolder.
Interviewed in by CNN's Martin Savidge, (May 25, 2003) Brown
asserted that 99% all of the history was accurate, and all of the
background, leaving only the Harvard symbologist and his actions
to be fiction. Asked on the Today Show (June 9, 2003) how much of
his book “was based on reality in terms of things that
actually occurred,” Brown insolently replied, “Absolutely
all of it.” In another interview, Mr. Brown said that he
himself became a believer in his conspiracy theory after being
unable to refute it! (Good Morning America, 11-3-03) In Dan
Brown's case, even a cursory examination of His “proofs”
reveals his reliance upon fabrications, and further research
reveals that the historical claims of the Da Vince Code are
almost entirely fallacious, depending on spurious evidence (or
ignorance thereof) and logical fallacies. Such a work of pseudo
historynot
only disallows it from being taken seriously as true, but even
negates it as good historical fiction (which should at least have
established facts of history straight). That one must resort to
such subterfuge in attempting to subvert Biblically substantiated
faith is not surprising, as contrary to Brown's belief, the Bible
did not become the Bible and withstand over 2,000 years of
attacks to become the world's best seller due to Roman Catholic
autocratic decrees or deception, but because it's books manifests
their God - breathed inspiration to whosoever receives it's
Author and His message, while it's historicity is supported by
more archaeological and manuscript evidence than any literature
of comparable
antiquity.
And by faithful study and obedience to the Scriptures, it is
abundantly manifested that the Bible is the material source of
life-giving Christian faith, and that neither the Bible nor the
essential doctrines Brown attacks are the result of imperial
meddling. In hiding the evidence that thoroughly refutes him
while spinning a tale of aggressive fiction purporting to be
true, the Da Vinci Code reveals that it is Dan
Brown who is guilty of the of suppression of facts, rather than
what he claims took place in regards to Christian faith.

Meanwhile, it is the very Book
that Brown has chosen to attack that foretold and warned, “the
time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the
truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2Timothy
4:2, 3).

As the
evidence reveals, Dan Brown's novel clearly falls into that
category. Though the catalog below is by no means complete, the
principal Da Vinci Code fables are listed and exposed. More
concise fact vs. fiction lists can be seen here
and here
and another recommended refutation here

Technical
notes

Press F11
for full screen mode in most browsers.

Note:this
web page is made by an amateur (me!) but i think everything
should work as it does in my browsers. Click in the Table of
Contents on each FACT,
and you will see both the Da Vinci fables and my response. Click
on TOCto
return. For some Fables a link is provided for more
substantiation.

Genesis 3:1: Now the
serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the
LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God
said,...

Revelation 20:10 And the
devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and
shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The
fable called the Da Vinci code, in short [seehere(wikipedia.org)
puts forth a specious conspiracy that alleges a suppression of
the "real" story of Jesus and the Christian faith, a
story which Brown then imaginatively and deceptively supplies,
and which results in an extremely radical, and very much
feminized distortion of it. In his attempt to infer authority to
his attack of Christianity, Mr. Brown uses fictitious “scholars
such as British “royal historian” Leigh Teabing, and
“Harvard professor” Robert Langdon which serve him
well as proxy professional prevaricators. This pseudo gospel
according to Brown imagines Mary Madelene being the wife of Jesus
and pregnant with child at the crucifixion, thus begetting a
“royal blood line” that included kings in France and
England. Along with this Brown has Leonardo Da Vinci supplanting
the apostle John at the last supper with Mary, and even makes her
to be the legendary “Holy Grail” (rather than the cup
the Lord drank from at the last supper, which is never
memorialized in Scripture as the “Holy Grail,” but
which was superstitiously iconized by Roman Catholicism). Yet the
more foundational blasphemies are those that make the four
Biblical gospels a conspiratorial work, and which Brown supplants
with “gnostic” pagan beliefs. If that were not
deviant enough from the facts, Brown renders the Christian faith
itself an adaptation of paganism, and presents Mary as the
intended head of the church, while also promoting ritual
religious fornication!

Though
such fantasies certainly will find a welcome audience in a
post-Christian, carnality-driven, and increasingly
deception-loving west, when faced with the facts as well as logic
it is manifestly evident that Brown's work is one of subtle yet
grievous deception, as is shown in the following exposé.
TOC

Is
it true that the Christian faith is the result of the rewriting
of Biblical gospels and suppression of others by Emperor
Constantine and the Roman Catholic Institution in the 4thcentury?

DVC:
“The Bible, as we know it today, was collated [properly
assembled] by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.”

FACTS>

Luke 1:1 (A.D. 57 – all
such dates conservative + approx.)Forasmuch as many
have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those
things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they
delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were
eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me
also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the
very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
Theophilus,

1Thes. 5:21 Prove all things;1Tim.
1:4 Neither give heed to fablesActs 17:11 These were more
noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word
with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily,
whether those things were so

Among other things, allthe Biblical gospels, which were
based upon eye-witness accounts, were written and were in
circulation – along with all of the New Testament (N.T.)
books – within approx. 60 years after Jesus death and
resurrection, as both internal and external evidences show, and
which is substantially earlier than Browns nebulous “Gnostic”
sources. And unlike the latter, the Biblical gospels and N.T.
books were and are consistent with the Old Testament Scriptures,
which are their evident foundation. And unlike Browns late and
sparse sources (see Fable #6), the books of the Bible are
abundantly testified to by thousands of manuscripts, including
whole or partial manuscripts which predate the 4thcentury Council of Nicea by up to
200 years, and are estimated to have been written much earlier
than that. In addition, The Biblical books enjoyed wide
acceptance among early churches, and the writings of numerous
early church leaders testify to the fact that the New Testament
existed in the 1stand 2ndcentury – long before 4thcentury Constantine and the Nicean
Council. The canon of Scripture was basically settled long before
4th - century
Constantine and the Council of Nicea, and in addition, the 66
books of Bible owe their selection, promulgation and endurance
not to autocratic imposition, Constantinian (who did noteven do the selection or control it)
or otherwise, but to God and the consensus of multitudes who by
Him realized that their evident power, purity and probity was
beyond the effluence of mere men, rather such words of Life were
wholly inspired (or “breathed”) of the Spirit of God.
Such Holy Writ stood and stands in sharp contrast to the Gnostic
counterfeits in all virtuous attributes and evidences. Gnosticism
is not “wisdom that is from above”(Ja. 3:17) and the
historical effect of it's incohesive and insubstantial teachings
and it's imaginary Christ - phantom has been that of spiritual
impotence and obscurity, attractive to those seeking darkness and
deception rather than true light and truth. SeeHERE
for
additional substantiation. TOC

FABLE # 2

Is
the belief in Jesus Divinity the result of Constantine's
autocratic intervention and church formulation at the Council of
Nicea?

DVC:“Constantine
upgraded Jesus' status” and “rewrote” history
by commissioning and financing “a new Bible, which omitted
those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits andembellished those gospels that made Him godlike.”

FACTS>2

1Peter 1:20 (A.D. 66) Knowing this
first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the
will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost.

1John 4:22 (A.D. 87) Who is a liar but
he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that
denieth the Father and the Son.

This is easily proved to be patent nonsense
in every point. Long, long (like going back to JESUS' time on
earth itself) before Constantine and the Roman Catholic
Institution came to be, believers in Jesus Christ realized that
He was no mere man, but God “manifested in the flesh”
(1Tim.3:16). This is clearly evident in the gospel of John –
which is the gospel from which we have the oldest fragment (125
A.D.; written by 90 A.D.) – as well as the other N.T. books
which came before it (and in the O. T. as well: Is. 9:6; Mic.
5:2, etc.), all of which antedate Constantine and the Council
of Nicea(www.wikipeida.org)by over 200 years!

The Biblical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, also not
only testify to the same, by also speak very clearly of Jesus
human traits, and do so more abundantly than the metaphysical
gnostic “gospels” Brown seeks to supplant them with.
In fact it is because the Biblical gospels reveal Jesus humanity
so clearly that Nicea primarily met, as there were many who only
taught of the human aspect of Jesus (which relegation is a
tendency of man, as Jesus' Divinity and holiness is a challenge
to their immorality and sovereignty).

Moreover, contrary to both Islamic and Gnostic imaginations,
one cannot simply change the New Testament to place within it
Jesus literal physical death and resurrection or Divine Sonship
(which both Muslims and Gnostics deny) as basically everything in
them is directly or indirectly linked to such! EVERY ONE of the
Biblical manuscripts which antedate both Nicea and the Quran (and
contain the relevant portions), declare the physical death and
resurrection and Divine Sonship of Christ as do current Bibles!
Not even one Biblical manuscript says what later works purport in
denying such (among other things). In Scripture Jesus is called
the Son of God over 50 times, and the Divine title of God is
applied as well, with His very works testifying to the same. In
the Scriptures unique titles, attributes and glory which belong
to God alone are given to the Lord Jesus, revealing that the LORD
who Isaiah saw in His glory was in fact Jesus Christ, the visible
manifestation of the invisible God (Heb. 1:3). Therefore saith
He, “he that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on
him that sent Me. And he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me”
(cf. John. 12:34b-45; Isaiah 6:1—10). Praise ye the Lord!

And contrary to Browns ignorant assertions, we have abundant
historical confirmation that this Biblical truth (of Jesus'
Divinity) was believed long before any 4th century
Council, as is seen in the writings of early church leaders:

Ignatius of Antioch (circa 100 AD): “I give glory to
Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you"
(Letter to the Smyraeans) “Jesus Christ . . . was with the
Father before the beginning of time”

Hippolytus (mid to late 2nd century): “For
Christ is the God over all” (Refutation of All Heresies
10.34).

Iranaeus (between 120-202 A.D.) “In order that to Christ
Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King.”

Justin Martyr (150 AD) “The Father of the universe has a
Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.”
(Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63).

Rather
than bowing to the historical records – and above all to
the Lord of history – Mr. Brown has made lies his refuge
and crowned deception his king! See HEREfor additional
substantiation. TOC

DVC:
“the Emperor led the bishops to declare Jesus as the Son of
God by a vote.” "A relatively close vote at that."

FACTS>3

John_20:31 (80 A.D.) But these are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Council of Nicaea could hardly "invent"
the divinity of Jesus, seeing it was already held as evident
truth long before Constantine, because the person of Christ and
the gospels and writings of the 1stcentury apostles revealed it, as is
evidenced by historical records. Thus Nicea – based upon
the testimony of Scripture and not upon pressure by Constantine
(who did not even attend it) – affirmed that Jesus is Lord,
possessing the same eternal, uncreated nature as the Father, and
declared Arianism heretical. As for Brown's “close vote”,
JESUS divinity was affirmed by a vote of 298
to 2 (2 abstained). Hardly a
cliff hanger. Brown is caught lying through his teeth again! See
HERE
for
additional substantiation. TOC

FABLE #4

The
divinity of Jesus was first raised and established at the Council
of Nicaea in A.D. 325, “ prior to that time, no one—not
even Jesus’ followers—believed Jesus was anything
more than a “mortal prophet.”

FACTS>

Matthew_16:15 (A.D. 45) He saith unto
them, But whom say ye that I am? 16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God.

Brown's zeal to
replace the Biblical Jesus with one more to his liking brings him
to not only make wholly unsubstantiated claims but exceeding rash
ones as well. Here we are told that no
onebelieved
Jesus was anything more than a mortal prophet. Considering Brown
expects us to believe nonsense about Mary Madelene being Pope,
and at the end has his proxy “parishioner” (Langdon)
bowing down to her in worship, it is expected that he would
reject Jesus to be the immortal Son of God seeing Scripture
clearly reveals such. It is Brown's assertions that must fall
before the abundant evidences which testify of truth–believing
souls declaring Jesus to be, as Thomas did, “My
Lord and my God” (Jn. 20:28)!Not
only do Biblical manuscripts record this but writings from early
church leaders also do. Even the record of a non-Christian
sources such as pagan Roman historian Pliny testify to the fact
that early Christians worshiped Jesus. See HEREfor
additional substantiation.
TOC

“The
Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950's... confirming that the
modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a
political agenda...”

FACTS>5

2Cor._4:4:1 (A.D. 62):Therefore seeing we have this ministry,
as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the
hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor
handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the
truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight
of God.

The Da Vinci code is consistently false in it's attacks
against Scripture and history thereof. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)
were discovered in 1947 (excavated till 1956), and represent the
principal finds of surviving Biblical manuscripts (mss) written
before AD 100. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament
book was found in Qumran, which actually works to confirm the
integrity of the Scriptures and to show the spurious nature of
Brown's scattered sources. Consider that careful comparison of
the nearly complete book of Isaiah with the text from which the
King James Bible was translated (the 11th century A.D.
Masoretic text) found a nearly 95% word for word agreement, with
the remaining 5% being mostly minor copyist errors or spelling
changes. This accuracy was found despite there being over 1,000
years for changes to be made in this manuscripts they had! In
addition, DSS evidence indicates that the same scrolls that were
found were in a room where imperfect ones would evidently be put,
which faulty mss could account for any real, though minor,
changes (Jewish scribes were typically very scrupulous in
transcribing).

Meanwhile the Qumran discoveries work to confirm the
historicity of the Jewish faith which is the foundation of the
New Testament, and refutes Gnosticism (as incohesive as it is).
These, along with other overwhelming evidences, bury Dan Brown's
idea that the God of Christianity was a 4th century
formulation!

“The
Gnostic Nag Hammadi gospels are as old as the gospels in the New
Testament.

FACTS>6

Acts 1:1 (A.D. 52) The former treatise
[Luke] have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to
do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after
that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the
apostles whom he had chosen:

It becomes more and more evident that
Brown's scholars must belong to the Flat Earth Society, as he is
“flat” wrong here (again). The Nag Hammadi gospels
are neither as old as the Biblical gospels nor anywhere as well
substantiated! Based upon internal and external evidence
(comparison of fragments and quotations, historical correlations,
examination of textual families, etc.) the Biblical Gospels are
dated to the first century. Thousands of actual manuscripts exist
today, many of which date prior to 200 A.D., including a fragment
(writing materials of Biblical age did not last long) of the
gospel of Mark. There are also fragments of other New Testament
books such as Acts, which are dated to have been written around
50 A.D., and a fragment of the gospel of John dated at 125 A.D.
or earlier. Nearly complete copies of both Luke and John exist
which are dated from between A.D. 175 and 225.In
contrast, the manuscripts of the Gnostic Nag Hammadi library,
which gospels were written 100 to 200 years apart, and discovered
hundreds of miles apart, and were copied between A.D. 350-400,
with most Gnostic literature being written between the late 2ndto the 5thcentury. No evidence exists to show
that any of these books were written before A.D. 150.
TOC

80
Gnostic “gospels” voted out by the Catholic Church at
the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 because of political reasons.

FACTS>7

1Cor. 2:15:(A.D. 59) But he that is
spiritual judgeth all things,

Heb. 5:14 (A.D. 64) But strong meat
belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by
reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good
and evil.

While there are only 45 titles in the
Gnostic Nag Hammadi Library, and not all of them are “gospels”
(or in their case, attempted syncretistic pagan/Christian
accounts of Jesus life), the real issue is why would Brown's
preferences, along with other (not thousands!) so obviously
spurious books, be placed with books which met the Heavenly
standard of Divine inspiration? Even in the secular realm not
every book becomes a classic, and we do not attribute that to
conspiracies. With New Testament Scripture, not only did books
have to meet holy and powerful criteria (see below), but ages of
unconstrained devotion and testimony by those who trust and obey
it provide the kind of transcendent affirmation that a church
council could not, though such serves to confirm the 66 (not
73) books of their selection.

As in the prior and confirmed selection of the Jewish canon,
the selection of books in the New Testament canon were not based
upon politics, but on whether they met the high and holy
“quality” that set them apart from other books.
Originals always have imitations, and but in almost all cases* it
was easily apparent by spiritually mature men to discern the
difference.

The formal criteria for inclusion in the
canon of Scripture was that a book had to be written close to the
time of Jesus, and had to be authored either by one of the
apostles or a companion of one, and consistent with the
substantiated understanding of the Christian faith. Plus it had
to be widely received by the churches.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/127/169/.

Brown's Gnostics sources, as well as multitude others, failed
these necessary tests. And in their case they would fail every
single one!

Exodus 17:14 [A.D. 1490] And the LORD
said unto Moses, Write this for
a memorial in a book, and
rehearse it in
the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of
Amalek from under heaven.

The conclusion of the blind guides Brown
follows is rejected by actual scholars, as the DSS(wikipedia.org),
are NOT early Christian texts, with scarce, minutely possible
exceptions such as one fragment of one complete word! The DSS do
not even mention Christianity nor the names of anyone associated
with its beginnings, and were written before the coming of Christ
(though they did look forward to the coming of the Messiah).

“About 30% are fragments from the
Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and
the Book of Nehemiah (Abegg et al 2002). About 25% are
traditional Israelite religious texts that are not in the
canonical Hebrew Bible, such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of
Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi. Another 30% contain Biblical
commentaries or other texts such as the Community Rule.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls).

A much disputed possible Christian text is
that of a fragment (7Q5)in which the only complete word in
Greek is "και" = "and"
Though hardly anyone considers that it may be part of Mark
6:52-53, this still would not validate Brown's assertion, and
instead, as the fragment is dated at between sometime AD 30 and
60, it would help confirm that Mark was written by then.

"Anyone
who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine's version was
deemed a heretic. The word heretic derives from that moment in
history."

FACTS>9

2Pet. 2:2:1 (A.D. 68) But there were
false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be
false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction.

Having dispensed with the fallacy of
Constantine's version (unless perhaps Constantine really lived in
the first century B.C. and wrote parts of the O.T., plus the
gospels, plus the rest of the New Testament!), let us find out
about “heretics.” The word heretic literally means
sect, or division, and is used in such places as the first
century Biblical letter 1 Corinthians (11:19), where it refers to
necessary divisions between spiritual and carnal believers, while
Galatians (5:20) shows it to be a fruit of the flesh. Titus 3:10
therefore enjoins, “A man that is an heretic after the
first and second admonition reject.” 2 Peter 2:1 also warns
of such.

Early church leaders Irenaeus and
Tertullian (both 2nd century AD) had
already used the term heretical in regards to Gnosticism and
similar unsubstantiated doctrines in the second century, such as
in documents titled 'Against Heresies' and 'The Prescription
Against Heretics.' The Muratorian Canon, a list with most of the
New Testament books from the late second century, warns against
heresy.

Thus “heretic” is used far
earlier than Nicea, and their use of it would come from the Bible
in which it applies to division, and to those who depart from
established truth. But the key thing here is that the truth about
Christ and aspects thereof had already been recorded in Scripture
long before Constantine, while Browns scholars are shown to have
PhD's in nonsense.

“..any
gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had
to be omitted from the Bible (p. 244).

FACTS>10

Luke 22:44 (A.D. 57) And being in an
agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were
great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

John 4:6 (A.D. 80) Jesus therefore,
being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well:

One really must wonder if Brown has ever actually ready the
Bible? The Biblical gospels make Jesus humanity abundantly clear,
yet not at the expense of His Divinity, which is a overall
sublime yet sure revelation in the synoptics.

In addition, while the Bible abundantly describes Jesus
earthly aspects, it is actually Brown's metaphysical, incohesive,
and scarcely substantiated Gnosticism that does not. Rather,
consistent with it's wishful metaphysicality it portrays Jesus
more like a phantom, who did not actually suffer on the cross
(etc.)! All of which is blasphemous, heretical and nonsensical.
What is now “a matter of historical record” is that
the DVC is a collection of willfully contrived fabrications. Like
Judas, Brown must count earthly silver more valuable than God and
his own eternal soul.

Luke 9:58 (A.D. 57) And Jesus said unto
him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests;
but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Brown's fantasy of a married Jesus only exists on his own (and
others like him) island of . The four Gospels in the Bible
(unlike Brown's spurious sources) were written when people who
were eye witnesses of Christ were still alive and records
their testimony, and is diligent in recording the important (and
sometimes minor), events of Christ's ministry, and marriage
certainly would be one of them! Yet there is nothing that says or
intimates anything of a married Jesus, rather the words and
narrative of His life makes it clear that He was not (though
there would be no sin in that if it was God's will). The only
family humanly related to Jesus on earth were those of his
earthly mother, and thus she is the only women whom He provided
future personal earthly care for upon His death (Jn. 19:26).
Meanwhile, the only marriage that the Lord Jesus had any
connection with is one in which He and His disciples were invited
guests (John. 2:1, 2). This wedding was for someone else, and was
where Jesus performed His first miracle (2:11). It is only
sometime later that the Lord cast 7 demons out of Mary Magdalene
(Mark 16:9), and who became one of the followers of Jesus, not
His wife.

Neither does any of the other Gnostic literature prove that
Jesus was married. In part of Dan Brown's “spin cycle”
he says that the Aramaic word for "companion" (used in
regards to Mary in the Gnostic gospel) literally meant "spouse."
Not only is this translation denied by various Aramaic scholars,
but even more critically, the Gnostic gospel of Phillip (in which
this was found) was not even written in Aramaic, rather it was
written in Egyptian Coptic, which may have been a translation
from Greek!

1 Thessalonians 5:26 (A.D. 53) Greet all
the brethren with an holy kiss.

Like Judas, Brown would betray the Biblical Jesus with a kiss,
albeit a proxy one, for though though it would be no sin for
Jesus to be married, such frequent public kissing on the lips
would be improper, and Brown's statement here is actually part of
a larger and unmentionable slander. However, nowhere is
there any such thing a Brown imagines. Brown must resort to the
pseudo gospel of Phillip, and has it saying that Jesus kissed
Mary often on the mouth, but even when that manuscript is
examined the word for "mouth" is not there! Old
manuscripts often are missing words due to the age of the
material (yet unlike the little - desired Gnostic sources, for
the Biblical gospels an abundance of manuscripts exist which
enables cross referencing), and although Brown's source is a
meretricious one from the beginning, if the missing word were to
be accurately rendered scribes would footnote a normal,
non-sexual cultural point of contact and not “mouth”
(Gn. 33:4; Lk. 15:30;). Brown thus is guilty here of eisegesis
(not exegesis), that of an unwarranted reading into the text what
one desires. No where in Scripture is kissing someone else with
the lips even stated (it seldom goes into bedrooms), and which is
part of holy sexual desire between man and wife (cf. SOS 4:3, 11;
5:13;). Though non-intimate kissing was a cultural practice in
Jewish culture (as it is in many others), yet in contrast to
Brown's imagination, nowhere in the Bible do we see that Jesus
kissed anyone, and even the other Gnostic "gospels" do
not have Him kissing Mary. What we do see is that He Himself was
kissed twice in the Bible, and both in public: in Luke 7:38 by an
unidentified women, who wept and kissed His feet in
gratitude because her many sins were forgiven, and in Mark. 14:45
by Judas Iscariot (cf. Acts 20:37), as he betrayed the Lord, who
went on to died for us and rose again that we may be forgiven!
Brown denies the Biblical Jesus and the holiness He so abundantly
manifested, and which is contrary to the impropriety the DVC
promotes. And in the absence of any true records he must use a
fake and late pseudo-gospel, to which he must interpolate words
in seeking to make his case, while none of the other Gnostic
sources even say what Brown fantasizes!

This absence of evidence (and contrary proofs) would also go
for children, that of Brown's claim that Mary Magdalene had a
daughter named Sarah but which finds no ancient source. Rather
this was made up by a modern women writer named Margaret
Starbird, who, showing an Eve-like tendency, based this fallacy
upon “a strong intuition.” (The Beloved’,
1999).

DVC:
“Jesus was a Jew, and the social decorum during that time
virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to
Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.”

FACTS>13

Matthew 19:12 (A.D. 45) For there are
some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:
and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let
him receive it.

Biblical and historical ignorance continued. Though celibate
singleness is the exception, God evidently did require celibacy
from people such as Jeremiah, "Thou shalt not take thee a
wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place"
(15:2). It may also be inferred that Elijah and Daniel and others
were also celibate. And as in the case of Jeremiah, which
celibacy was enjoined for a special purpose, how much more
fitting it was for Jesus, whose mission to save people physically
and spiritually and enable salvation for the world required
self-less dedication day and night, culminating with His death
for our sins at the young age of (approx) 33. Surely not only
would caring for a wife and children much hinder His world–saving
mission (and be impossible to hide), but it also would be unfair
to them.

In addition, celibacy was an option in Jesus time. Here Jewish
writer Philo of Alexandria describes the Essenes (thought by many
to be the collators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) as those who
“repudiate marriage . . . for no one of the Essenes ever
marries a wife” (Philo, Hypothetica, 11.14-17).

And rather than suffering the universalcommendation Brown assumes, Jewish
historian Philo describes the esteem of such dedicated celibacy:
“This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes,
so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings,
admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase . . . the
honors which they confer on them” (Ibid., 44) Josephus says
likewise. (see much
more on this, and about Mary Magdelene at
www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesusmarried.htm,

However it should be said that neither the Lord's celibacy nor
the words of celibate Paul in 1 Cor. 7 justifies the Roman
Catholic law that requires an unmarried, celibate clergy (except
for married eastern church priest converts). It is never to be
presumed that all clergy will have the gift of celibacy Paul
speaks of, while the 2nd requirement that is laid down
for ordination of Pastors is that they be “the husband of
one wife” (1Tim. 3:2)! What Rome does (or anyone) and what
the Bible teaches are not to be assumed to be the same. To know
the Truth we are to reverently “search the Scriptures”
(Jn. 5:39) with the heart to obey (Acts 17:11).

Mathew 26:18 (A.D. 45) And he said, Go
into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith,
My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my
disciples. 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them;
and they made ready the passover. 20 Now when the even was come,
he sat down with the twelve.

As ludicrous as it is, Dan Brown sees what is necessary to
sell books, and here he “paints” Mary Magdalene into
the Last Supper, replacing not the traitor Judas, but John, who
was closest to Jesus at the last supper! Such a fantasy hardly
needs refutation, but the plain facts are that Jesus ate the
passover with His 12 (not 13) apostles, and in the gospels all 12
are clearly named, and no one named Mary is not among them. At
the last supper it was actually John who was asked by Peter to
inquire about the identity of the traitor the Lord spoke of (Jn.
13:21-25). In addition, all the apostles are identified as males,
and the Lord never had any female apostles. Anything else would
be a radical departure from both the Old Testament as well as the
the rest of the New Testament, wherein only males are ordained to
be clergy (Ex. 28; Lv. 1; 1Tim. 3; Titus 1). Though the actual
earliest and authentic records of the last supper are what we
must go by, as far as Browns desired source is concerned, in Da
Vinci's painting there are only the 12 disciples of the Lord, and
the feminine looking man on Jesus' right is young John the
beloved, looking feminine after what often was the custom by many
artists (some of which were homosexual) in Da Vinci's time and
environment.

Unlike Brown's professional prevaricators British royal
historian Leigh Teabing, and Harvard professor Robert Langdon,
here is the statement of Denise Budd of Columbia University, who
has an real PhD:

“As far as the Magdalene (being
seated next to Jesus), clearly there is no dispute. That figure
is St John. He is Christ’s favorite, and is always shown by
his side… in earlier Florentine examples of that scene,
the figure of John is always by Christ’s side, he is always
beardless, and he’s always beautiful… A perfect
example of this “feminine” characterization of John
is in Raphael’s ‘Crucifixion’ in the London
National Gallery, painted around 1500.”
http://www.davincispeaks.net/chapter-3.htm

DVC's
Langdon blas-phemously claims that YHWH comes from the name
Jehovah, which he insists is an androgynous union between “the
masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah”

FACTS>15

Exodus 6:3 (1490 B.C) And I appeared
unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God
Almighty, but by My name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Having invented history, Brown attempts his hand
at engineering etymology which he likewise mangles. Biblical
Hebrew did not contain verbs, but later (and possibly original
Biblical) scribes placed some vowels points for verbs. While the
source for the name Jehovah has two main theories,*
one of which would allow for the English rendering of Jehovah,
the letter “J” or the translation Jehovah (the
eternally existent One) is not known to occur until at least the
13th century.

Brown goes on to invent a pre-Hebraic language
from which he says “Havah” (for Eve) comes, but which
in fact is the Hebrew name (chavva^h, pronounced "havah")
which means “mother of all living” (translated Eve in
English). Aside from containing two of the same Hebrew letters
(which commonality has little consequence), the Hebrew behind the
word Jehovah has no etymological connection to the name Eve.

The problem with Brown's theory is not only with
his etymology enterprising – and even then the source of a
word can be quite different from what it later denotes –
but it is where Brown seeks to go on his etymological express.
The real blasphemy comes in when Brown makes the God of the Bible
some sort of androgynous union, which in turn is linked to his
desire to see ritualistic sex in the Temple! [see next fable].

Such a thing is plainly and utterly contrary to
the kind of holiness the God of the Bible commanded of Israel and
were blessed for keeping, as they were called to not do
after after the manner of the heathen (Jer. 10:2), and were
judged when they did – all of which the Bible abundantly
attests to (Lv. 18 – 20; Dt. 7). “Defile not ye
yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations
are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled:
therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land
itself vomiteth out her inhabitants” (Lv. 18:24, 25; cf.
2Kng. 21:2).

In making the living and true of the Bible after
an image more to his own liking, Brown has done just what every
soul should avoid, that of taking the name of the Lord in vain,
using His authority to validate his wholly unwarranted, wishful
and profane fables! (And for this he will be judged by God,
unless he repents).

Ex. 28:42: And thou shalt
make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from
the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they
shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto
the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto
the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear
not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto
him and his seed after him.

Lev. 18:26: Ye shall
therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit
any of these abominations; neither any of your own
nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

Jer. 10:2 :Thus saith the
LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen,..

Micah 1:2b ...let the Lord
GOD be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple.

Mr. Brown's inferences here that the Jewish
faith sanctioned any kind of ritual sex are another of his unholy
deceptions that have absolutely no basis in fact. He does not
even try to falsely reference a source and there is no real one
to be found. Anyone familiar with the God–ordained precise
rules of behavior in the Temple knows that nakedness itself was
strictly prohibited and violation of such prohibitions was a
capital offense.
The Temple of the Lord was holy, and those that violated it were
to be slain,
as were those that blaspheme God such as Brown regularly and
impudently does!

It was this kind of thing which was a
practice of pagan religions, and which Brown would
blasphemously join the Biblical God and Christ to! Only in
Israel's spiritual backsliding in direct disobedienceto God was any such a thing done in the Temple:

1Sam. 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all
that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the
women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation. 23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things?
for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24 Nay, my
sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the
Lord's people to transgress. 25 If one man sin against another,
the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who
shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto
the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

Dt. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the
daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [male temple prostitute]
of the sons of Israel.

One should read the book of Lamentations to
realize the consequences of such continued idolatry and
profanity.

Brown's attempt to use Shekinah is just as
blasphemous. Shekinah refers to the manifest glory of God such as
was seen in the Old Testament Temple (not the Mormon one!), and
not that of some female consort (there were not even any female
priests). Finding a name that is similar, Brown states that that
name, Sheshach is “mentioned repeatedly in the Book of
Jeremiah” yet this is a person's proper name and has
nothing to do with Shekinah. Neither is it mentioned repeatedly
but only twice is it found (Jer. 25:26, 51:41). Having sought to
turn the glory of God into shame, shame shall be visited upon
Brown – unless he repents: “And many of them that
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt” (Dan. 122).

Brown
taught that use of ritual, religious fornication was a means to
attain knowledge of the divine. And that the Catholic church made
sex into a shameful things, because it threatened their position
as intercessors.

FACTS>17

Isaiah 59:1, 2 (700 B.C.)
“Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot
save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2 But your
iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins
have hid his face from you, that he will not hear”

Outside to Rome's unBiblical deviations, Brown's
imagination here is more Gnostical nonsense. Rather than bringing
souls into communion with Almighty God, Brown instead actually
promotes fornication, which is sin, and which separates –
not unites – men from God and blessed communion with Him!
Again, long, long before Roman Catholicism, the LORD declared
that fornication was sin (Lev. 18; Dt. 22), and that fornicators
shall not inherit the kingdom of God, but shall “have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
the second death” (1Cor. 6:10; Rev. 21:8).

And it was because of sin that atonement was
provided (which sacrifices pagan also copied), and for which the
Temple was built. But Christ having come and giving Himself for
our sins (as prophesied 700 years prior in Is. 53) as the perfect
propitiation [perfect and final sacrifice] for our sins, there
remains no more sacrifice for sins, but all who come to Jesus
Christ and receive the Lord are forgiven of all trespasses (Heb.
10; Col. 1:13). Praise ye the Lord!

“Herein is love, not that we loved
God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to
be the propitiation for our
sins.” “And we have seen and do testify that the
Father sent the Son to be the
Saviour of the world” (1Jn. 4:10, 14). Praise the Lord!

As for sex, the Scripture declares that sex
within marriageis not shameful nor unclean, but
“Marriage is honourable
in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers
[those who have sexual
relations before or outside of marriage] God
will judge” (Heb.
13:4). The only wise God, who made everything good, and enabled
sexual relations, also gave us holy, just and good laws for the
practices thereof. And just as a womens nakedness is not for
public consumption, but only for the man who has earned the right
by marriage to behold, so sexual relations are only right within
the context of marriage. Among other reasons, such a highly
intimate act requires the ultimate in vulnerability, which
requires trust, which requires commitment, and only within the
lifetime commitment called marriage is that kind of security
promised and sexual intimacy approved and blessed by the Creator.
And as God has designed this to normally result in bringing more
lives into the world (though that is not the only reason for it),
so the love and solidity of marriage is necessary there as well.
The failure of many to make or keep that commitment in no way
negates the fact that marriage is ordained of God, and only
sexual relations between husband (man) and wife (female) is
sanctioned [homo-sexual
relations]are
never given the provision of marriage, but are condemned).

Langdon’s
confident explanation: “the sacred feminine was demonized
and made unclean. It was man, not God, who created the concept of
‘original sin,’ whereby Eve tasted of the apple and
caused the downfall of the human race.”(p. 238)

FACTS>18

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands,
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave
himself for it;

Col. 3:19 Husbands, love
your wives, and be not bitter against them.

1Pet. 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell
with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the
wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of
the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. 8 Finally,
be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

No, the Bible does not “demonize”
women, which is what Brown's erotic faith can do to both men and
women, but makes her – as well as the man “sacred”
-- not gods but creations of the true and living God uniquely
worthy of respect or dedication – in Christ. They are not
positionally equal, any more than a football quarterback is with
the receiver, as one must be the leader, and God has created men
to be overall more fitted to that, but they are spiritually equal
(Gal. 3:28). More is said about this in the next section.

As for Eve being the scapegoat, this in not the
case. Consistent with male leadership is greater responsibility,
and in Scripture Adam is given the greater guilt, as unlike Eve
who was deceived (perhaps generally indicative of the downside of
certain positive qualities of women), Adam knew what he was
doing.

But Brown's professor does not, as he erroneously
states that Eve ate of the apple (which would likely have
symbolic meaning in the DVC), when in fact in the Genesis record
says nothing about apples, but simply states the “fruit of
the tree.” (Gn. 3:3). One would think a “Harvard
professor” of religious symbology would know that, but he
is as fictional as his lies.

DVC
“...Con-stantine and his male successors successfully
converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal
Christianity” (pg 124).

FACTS>19

Esther 1:20 {520 B.C.) And when the
king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout
all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to
their husbands honour, both to great and small. 21 And the saying
pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to
the word of Memucan: 22 For he sent letters into all the king's
provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof,
and to every people after their language, that every man should
bear rule in his own house, and that it should be
published according to the language of every people.

What in the world, or more exactly, what “world”
is Brown is referring to? As anthropology will tell you, male
leaderships has been the norm throughout recorded world history,
and if anything is being overthrown, it is male leadership and
deleteriously so. Even in pre-Christian Gnosticism male gods were
clearly dominant. Neither was pagan Rome matriarchal, and it was
Biblical Christian faith (not it's institutionalized counterpart)
that effectively influenced for better treatment of both women
and children as well as the absolution of slavery. Meanwhile, the
ancient Dead Sea Scrolls work to confirm the historicity of the
lasting patriarchal Jewish faith, which is the foundation of the
New Testament faith. And thus, along with other anthropological
evidence, it buries Browns idea that 4thcentury
Christianity converted a world of female leadership (“Sacred
Femine”) to male leadership. And again contrary to the
record of so many other faiths, the Christian faith elevates
women as both sacred and feminine, but not as the “goddesses”
which Brown fashions out of whole cloth.

DVC:
“Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to lead the church, but
“Peter had a problem with that”, and therefore thus
she made to be declared a prostitute and had no leadership.

FACTS>20

Genesis 3:16 ... and thy desire shall
be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know,
that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman
is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

It is Dan Brown who has “prostituted” Mary for his
own deceitful end. As to Mary being intended to lead the church,
this, per usual, is clearly without any substance at all to
support Brown's desire to see Mary Magdalene as Pope.

Going back to the underlaying theme, the Bible was much
contrary to other cultures in the place and treatment of women,
and places them as a team, but it knows not of two headed
leadership. While the Bible candidly shows the accounts of many
notable men and women, both good and bad, in no place are women
in leadership position over God's people (except an instance
wherein no man would lead*). All the Levites were male, as were
all Christ's apostles, and only men are given ordination in the
New Testament as well. There simply is no for formal provision
for female leadership over men, and the Holy Spirit's commands to
Pastor Timothy (1 Tim. 2) are, “Let the woman learn in
silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach,
nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For
Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but
the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (11-14).

The Bible's commands regarding men over women are not based on
cultural considerations but on creational distinctives, which are
after the Divine order. “But I would have you know, that
the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is
the man; and the head of Christ is God”
(1Cor.11:3).

All of which (among other benefits) should constrain men to
act like men. The only exceptions are when and if men will not do
so (or are unable to), like as in *Judges 4 where faith–full
Deborah led when Barak would not. Though this may be preferred
over no leadership in such a situation, but if continued there
will be avoidable aberrations, and the Holy Spirit's order is
that men are the head over women and the latter are not to have
teaching authority in the church, nor to take the place of
authority over the man, and are to give deference to the man in
leadership and conversation. Male leadership works for the
betterment of the body as a whole in being Christ–like, and
to it's detriment when usurped.

As for Mary Magdalene being denigrated as a prostitute, the
Bible says no such thing, but records Mary as one of many
followers of Jesus, “out of whom the He had cast 7 devils
(Mk. 16:9). The idea that Mary was a prostitute had nothing to do
with Peter, but evidently came from a Pope (presuming to sit in
Peter's seat), “St. Gregory the Great” (540?-604).

DVC::
"Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God
Mithras – called the Son of God and the Light of the World
– was born on Dec. 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
then resurrected in three days.”

FACTS>21

Deuteronomy 7:1 When the
LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to
possess it, .... 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them
before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy
them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto
them:But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their
altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves,
and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an
holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen
thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that
are upon the face of the earth. ... 26 Neither shalt thou
bring an abomination into thine house,

16:21 Thou shalt not plant
thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy
God, which thou shalt make thee. 22 Neither shalt thou set thee
up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.

While little in the DVC is actually original,
except for some new extremes of fabrication, the Biblical faith
in the living and true God needs no help from it's
counterfeiters, nor is any of it negated by those who
unScripturally seek to add to it using Gods name. This is both an
issue of which came first, and what are distortions or imitations
of what the Bible says.

As God has written the essence of His law on
their hearts (Rm. 2), so religions also overall have a moral code
that is similar in essence to that of the 10 commandments of the
Bible (such as the Code of Hummarabi), but fall short of God's
law in scope, character and power. Also, many beliefs are copies,
distortions or counterfeits of what God sets forth in Scripture.
For instance, the practice of sacrifice was done by early
peoples, but it was God who first instituted it and ordained it's
beneficial use, while pagan religions distorted it (such as by
sacrificing children). Examination of such things shows that
neither Biblical
Judaism or Biblical Christianity borrowed from
paganism, and often the reverse is true.

Neither is does Mithraic scholarship know
of no such titles for Mithra as “the Son of God” or
the Light of the World,” nor even any birthdate, and
Mithraic scholar Richard Gordon states,“there is no death
of Mithras.” Therefore there could not be any burial or a
resurrection! (http://www.equip.org/free/DD228.htm.)

As for Christmas and other like accumulated
practices from institutionalized Roman Catholicism, and which do
indeed have a distinctly pagan source, while such adaptation may
be considered “ideological victory” by some, the fact
is this is also a distortion of Biblical Christianity (though
many observed it sincerely). The Christianizing (versus using
them as points of reference) of distinctly pagan things as well
as annual celebrations that have no Biblical precedent as such
are contrary to precept and principle in Scripture (Dt. 7; Gal.
4:10; Col. 2:14-17).

Finally, Brown's latest attempt to promote his
preferred pornographic paganism provides more proof (not that
anymore is needed!) that Constantine did not change the Bible, as
neither a Dec. 25 birth date nor an annual commemoration of Jesus
birth is found in Scripture, despite Mr. Brown's imagination that
Constantine could and would change Scripture to fit his needs (in
fact, the aberrations of Rome were done by excluding and misusing
Scripture)!

“Christianity
honored the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted
it to coincide with the pagan’s veneration day of the sun.”

FACTS>22

Colossians 2:16 “Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath:17 Which are a
shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

While the name “Sunday” is of pagan
origin, as are all the days of the week (and will not be so in
the millennial reign of Christ), the Christian observance of the
first day is not. Long before Constantine, both in the New
Testament books and in the writings of early church leaders which
came long before Constantine, Christians were meeting
specifically on the 1st day of the week, and in fact
it is the only specific day recorded that Christians met together
as a church:

Jesus arose and: appeared to the disciples on the
first day of the week, (Mark 16:9 John. 20:19), and Pentecost was
on the first day of week when the Holy Spirit was poured out (and
is considered by most to be the birth of the church).

And this is was on the first day that we read that the
disciples met on in Acts 20:7: “And upon the first day
of the week, when the disciples came together to break
bread,..”

Likewise in 1Cor. 16:2: “Upon the first day
of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God
hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

This is because the 7th day Sabbath
was part of the ceremonial law, just as circumcision –
which was also an “everlasting covenant” (Gn. 17:7-9)
– also was (Rm. 2:28, 29; Gal. 6:15). Such things were part
of the typological “days, months, times and years”
(Gal. 4:10) “shadows” which prefigured Christ (Col.
2:14-17) and the spiritual rest that faith in him offers (Heb.
4;; Mt. 11:28). And having received the substance, even Christ
which faith in Him brings, we no longer look to the shadows for
life.

Other attestation that early Christians met on
the first day is found in the ancient testimony of such writers
as Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (110 AD), who wrote: "If,
then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness
of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their
lives after the Lord's Day on which our life also arose
through Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our
only teacher.”

Justin Martyr (150 AD) also stated that the first
day was the day when Christians gathered together to assemble and
read the Scriptures and hold their assembly, as it was both the
initial day of creation and the day of Jesus resurrection.

Writings from others who also antedate
Constantine significantly, such as Cyprian, and Pliny the
Younger, testify that Christians met on the first day. The
apocryphal writings the Didache (70-75) instructs: "On the
Lord's own day, gather yourselves together and break bread and
give thanks."

Though these latter references have not the
authority of Scripture, along with it they show that Christian
did indeed meet on the first day long before Constantine, and
that Brown's (and other's) allegations are false.

DVC:
“FACT: The Priory of Sion– a European secret society
founded in 1099– is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s
Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les
Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of
Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo Da Vinci.”

FACTS>23

Jeremiah 51:18 They are vanity,
the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall
perish.

Artificial Intelligence: The Priory of Sion has been
thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a modern day club,
albeit with some high aspirations. It was a club created in 1956
by Frenchman Pierre Plantard, and the use of him by Brown
indicates how much the character and veracity of his sources
means. And that Brown himself, whose work is based on what
follows, is guilty of promoting scams similar to which he himself
spuriously alleges.

Pierre Plantard was an admirer of Adolf Hitler who had
welcomed the German invasion of his homeland. He also claimed to
being a legitimate claimant to the throne of France! He was
convicted of fraud and embezzlement in the early 1950s and spent
time in prison.

The evidence reveals that after founding and registering the
Priory of Sion in 1956, Plantard was involved in tricks, schemes,
and fabrications, and the planting of “proof” of his
Priory of Sion through forged so-called “Dossiers Secrets”
at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) in Paris
(“created evidence” is Brown's specialty was well )!
A man named Henry Lincoln read them and drew the attention of the
BBC, which would produce a documentary in 1970. This led to a
confederacy with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh who in turn
founded the pseudohistorical “Secret Files of Henri
Lobineau.” These were put together by Plantard and author
and fellow con man Philippe de Cherisey (who forged the Dossiers
Secrets”) under the pseudonym of "Philippe Toscan du
Plantier." These became the basis for Baigent's and Leigh's
work of deception, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which
became the basis for the da Vicni Code!

To make a not - too - long story
shorter, after more attempts at fabrication, Plantard was
investigated by a French judge investigating the activities of a
prominent man Plantard had placed as a grandmaster –
apparently after the man had died – of his created Priory
of Sion. A search of Plantard's house found what was as “a
fantasy-land of harmless, forged documents,
includingsome proclaiming Plantard the true king of
France.” Plantard later
testified that he had fabricated the entire hoax, yet he received
no real punishment. Being finally brought back to some reality,
he lived in obscurity till his death in Feb. 2003. Philippe de
Chérisey already made several confessions prior to
Plantard's, confessing that the story told in "L'Or de
Rennes," which was one of the books used to promote the
mythical Priory of Sion, was a total forgery.

Despite such exposure of vast deception by conspiracy writers,
the real “conspirators” carried on, with the help
uncritical pseudo historians like Brown who care less about truth
than about the dollar.

After the publication of DVC, Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown
in 2006, charging that Brown had stolen entire chapters from
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" for his novel. A British court
overruled their claim. So much for suppression of
conspiratorialists.

On a BBC report about this mysterious group in 1996, Andre
Bonhomme, the original president of the Priory of Sion, made this
statement: “The Priory of Sion doesn’t exist anymore.
We were never involved in any activities of a political nature.
It was four friends who came together to have fun. We called
ourselves the Priory of Sion because there was a mountain by the
same name close by. I haven’t seen Pierre Plantard in over
20 years and I don’t know what he’s up to but he
always had a great imagination. I don’t know why people try
to make such a big thing out of nothing.”

"the
Dossiers Secrets had been authenticated by many specialists and
incontrovertibly confirmed that the famous people listed were
indeed former Priory leaders....”

FACTS>24

Isaiah 28:15 We have made a covenant
with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the
overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto
us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we
hid ourselves:

Just a quote from one of the true researchers
should suffice here:

It should be
understood that this fictionalized treatment completely reverses
the judgment of real-world researchers, who (with the exception
of dedicated conspiracy theorists) have rather dismissed the
Dossiers as obvious forgeries. Nor had any "historians"
ever suspected that Newton, Botticelli etc. were members of any
"Priory of Sion"; this claim first appeared in the
Dossiers themselves.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion

DVC:
“Once you open your eyes to the Holy Grail you see her
everywhere.”

“Leonardo
was a “prankster and genius” who is “widely
believed to have hidden secret messages within much of his
artwork.”

FACTS>25

2Timothy 3:13 But evil men
and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being
deceived.

It is exceeding evident that Brown sees what he
wants to see. I have little interest in dealing with his rabbit
trail “grail” (an unBiblical legend of the cup Jesus
drank from, which is definitely not Mary), nor all of Mr. Brown's
delusions regarding Da Vinci, suffice to provide just a couple
out of the chorus of actual scholars which sing in harmony in
exposing Brown as one who is essentially taking Da Vinci's name
“in vain:”

Jack Wasserman retired art history professor at
Temple University in Philadelphia and noted expert on the artist
Leonardo Da Vinci has this to say about Dan Brown's novel story:

J.V. Field, president
of the Leonardo Da Vinci Society and historian of art at the
University of London, described the book’s theory about
Leonardo’s putatively hidden messages “Everything I
know about how pictures were used to communicate indicates that
the theory is absurd.” Authentic history requires proof,
said Field, but “The Da Vinci Code offers none that
scholars would recognize.”
http://www.boundless.org/departments/pages/a0000882.html

DVC:
FACT: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture,
documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

FACTS>26

Ephesians 4:11 (A.D. 64) And He gave
some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and
some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints,
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth
be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about
with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all
things, which is the head, even Christ:

Even Brown's carefully worded statement –
which does not say all “history” – is
misleading and false, thereby setting the standard for the whole
novel.

While his “descriptions”
of documents are often showed to be exceeding false, Brown also
substituted deception or unwarranted conclusions for accuracy in
certain other “descriptions.” However, i have not
focused on such as my main contention, as this exposé of
Mr, Brown's Da Vinci Code has been his multitudinous fallacious
claims he had made in his undisguised attacks on the Biblical
Christian faith. The fact is that Brown's regurgitated fallacies
are so well documented as such that this exposé should not
be all that necessary, except as a comprehensive free refutation
of them as a unit. The true Holy Spirit–inspired Scriptures
warned,“evil
men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being
deceived” (2Tim.
3:13), and Mr. Brown is one
of many men of "cunning cratfiness" who have sought to
war against God and His Word by peddling vain deception, "a
work of errors" (Jer. 10:15). But which, unlike the Word of
God, shall not endure. Yet as Jesus came to seek and save that
which lost (Luke 19:10), so this documentation is purposed to
enlighten souls as to the spurious nature of the DVC, and point
them to the light, even Christ, the Son of the living God, whom
Mr. Brown will one day give an account to. It will not be pretty,
and i pray he can and will repent.

2Peter 5:16 (A.D. 66) For we have not
followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you
the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were
eyewitnesses of his majesty.17 For he received from God the
Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from
the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased.

In stark contrast to Brown's insolent assertion, the facts are
that “Almost everything the Da Vinci Code taught about
Christ is false.” And exceedingly and blasphemously so. As
the evidence conclusively shows, the conspiracy and history that
Mr. Brown merchandises does not exist except in his poor mind.
After exposing lie after lie, all deceptively presented as fact,
one might ask why would he do such? Only love for money or fame –
and animosity toward Jesus Christ and truth – can explain
it. In contrast, those which in an honest and good heart, having
heard the word [the Bible], keep it, and
bring forth fruit with patience” (Lk. 8:15).May you
be of those who receive the LORD Jesus, and follow Him who is the
Way, the Truth and the Life, and not be of those who hearken unto
nor love deception

Matthew 12:36 But I say
unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away
in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that
great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from
God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like
unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as
crystal;..

27 And there shall in no
wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever
worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which
are written in the Lamb's book of life.

22:14 Blessed are they that do
his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,
and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without
are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers,
and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Jesus
saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by Me(Jn.
14:6).

The
Bible declares that “that no lie is of the truth, and that ”
the truth shall make you free” (1Jn. 2:21; Jn. 8:32).

Believing
a lie about Christ is believing the devil, and will send you to the
Lake of Fire with him (Rev. 21: 27)!

“And
the devil that deceived themwas
cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the
false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and
ever” (Rev. 20:10).

The
Lord Jesus testified that it is the devil who was “a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he
is a liar, and the father of it (Jn. 8:44).

Thus
the real author of the “Da Vinci code” is not really
Brown, but the devil himself.

The
ultimate choice you must make is between the devil and Christ,
between darkness and light, between lies and truth, between Hell and
Heaven. Jesus declared, The thief [the devil] cometh not, but
for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might
have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

To
be saved, consider the following and may God grant you grace to
repent and receive the Lord Jesus Christ today.

"How
shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation" (Heb.
2:3).

All
have sinned,
and broken God's good laws
in heart and in
deed, and nothing sinful
will be allowed into God's Heavenly City;
a real place of
“fulness of joy”
in the presence of Almighty God
(Rm. 3:23; Rv. 21:27; Ps. 16:11; Rev. 21, 22).

If
you die in your sins,
you will not be allowed into Heaven,
but will end up in a place just the opposite of Heaven,
a place called the Lake of Fire,
a real place of
weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
A place of real
torment - forever
(Mt. 25:41, 46). "Except ye repent,
ye shall likewise perish"
(Lk. 13:3)

You
have nothing to
offer God
by which you can gainHeaven nor escape
Hell. Neither Allah,
the Pope, Mary,
Muhammmad, Buddha,
etc. can save you. Your church membership,
“good deeds,”
praying to saints,
etc. will not make you right
with God.

Only
the One
sent by the Father,
Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
came down from
Heaven and is able
to redeem you on
Hisexpense
and merit- on
His precious blood and
righteousness
(not yours) - and then strengthen you to follow
Him.

It
is only this living and true Jesus
that lived sinless,
and then took your sins
and paid for them
with His own blood,
and then rose again
to be sen of many. And it is He who now reigns in Heaven
at the Father's right
hand as your present
Savior and future
Judge! (Acts 10:34-43; 1Pet.
1:18-20; 2:24; 3:18).

”Sirs,
what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”(Acts
16:30, 31)

You
can be saved -
forgiven,
justified, and
"born again"
by the Holy Spirit of God,
as Jesus said you must be (Jn. 3:3-7). If you want to be saved
from your sins
and live for God
instead(and you cannot until you are born again), then decide you
want Him
over sin,
and ask the Lord
Jesus Christ to save
you, trusting Him
to do so. Though you can never gain Heaven
nor escape Hell
on any off your own merits,
or that of a church,
you must decide you want Christ
over sin, and choose
light over darkness
by receiving the Lord
Jesus. Then you can be
forgiven
and declared righteous,
and made “alive
in Christ,”and
thus live for God
by the power of His Holy
Spirit. Praise the
Lord!

“Chooseye
this day whom ye shall serve”
(Joshua
24:15).

"Repent
ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19).

“And
the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, GOD
be merciful to me a sinner.”

"That
if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Lk. 18:13;
Rm.10:9).

“To
day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his
voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 4:7). We ask you to not
do anything else until you have made you decision for God.Thinkon
what the Lord
has said,
and what He has done
for you a sinner,
and “consider
your ways,”
and
turn to Christ with your whole
heart – while
you still may!

Here
is an example of a salvation-seeking prayer:

Dear
LORD JESUS, please have mercy on me. I admit that I am a sinner, and
I need to be saved. I know that I cannot save myself, but I believe
that the FATHER sent You, and that You died for my sins and that You
rose up alive. You are LORD.

So
I am asking You LORD JESUS, to please save me. Please wash away all
my sins, and come into my life, which I yield to You. And please fill
me with your Holy Spirit so I can live for you.

Thank
you LORD Jesus Christ, for saving those who trust in You. Amen.

Jesus
said, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him
that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn. 6:37). That
is good news!

“But
as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of
God, even to them that believe on His name” (Jn. 1:12).

You
show this decision in obeying GOD by being baptized under water in
identification with your LORD, and following HIM with a Bible –
believing/preaching church (despite persecutions).

Be
baptizedunder
water in identification with
your Lord, then
follow Him with a
Bible believingchurch: "Then
they that gladly received His word were baptized: ...And they
continued stedfastly ... (Acts 2:41, 42). Praise
ye the Lord!